↓ Skip to main content

The spatial representations acquired in CA3 by self-organizing recurrent connections

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The spatial representations acquired in CA3 by self-organizing recurrent connections
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2013.00112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erika Cerasti, Alessandro Treves

Abstract

Neural computation models have hypothesized that the dentate gyrus (DG) drives the storage in the CA3 network of new memories including, e.g., in rodents, spatial memories. Can recurrent CA3 connections self-organize, during storage, and form what have been called continuous attractors, or charts-so that they express spatial information later, when aside from a partial cue the information may not be available in the inputs? We use a simplified mathematical network model to contrast the properties of spatial representations self-organized through simulated Hebbian plasticity with those of charts pre-wired in the synaptic matrix, a control case closer to the ideal notion of continuous attractors. Both models form granular quasi-attractors, characterized by drift, which approach continuous ones only in the limit of an infinitely large network. The two models are comparable in terms of precision, but not of accuracy: with self-organized connections, the metric of space remains distorted, ill-adequate for accurate path integration, even when scaled up to the real hippocampus. While prolonged self-organization makes charts somewhat more informative about position in the environment, some positional information is surprisingly present also about environments never learned, borrowed, as it were, from unrelated charts. In contrast, context discrimination decreases with more learning, as different charts tend to collapse onto each other. These observations challenge the feasibility of the idealized CA3 continuous chart concept, and are consistent with a CA3 specialization for episodic memory rather than path integration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 36%
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 16 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 24%
Physics and Astronomy 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 5 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2013.
All research outputs
#17,691,177
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#2,911
of 4,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,191
of 280,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#124
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.